ant's opinion that in doing what he admitted he had done in
taking diseased carcases there he had broken the law. This was
for the jury to decide, and the learned Judge properly told them
so. The third objection was with regard to the plea of truth,
The facts were as I have stated them. It was proved that the
plaintiff had taken diseased careases on to his licensed premises,
The whole point made for the plaintiff on this part of the case
was that the audience might have thought the statement that the
plaintiff took diseased careases on to his licensed slaughter house
premises meant that he took them into his killing house. But it
was for the jury to say whether the words conveyed that mean-
ing. The jury apparently thought they did not. Personally, I
should have come to the same conclusion. The audience, no doubt
residents of the district, perfectly understood what was the sub-
ject of discussion. The sole question was what did the defendant
mean by the words he used? If they bore one meaning the
verdict was obviously right. In my opinion the case was one in
which, as Mr. Pilcher admitted, the matter possessed so much of
public interest that the defendant was justified in making com-
ment upon it, provided that he did not do so maliciously, and
provided that the comment was fair and fairly relevant to the
subject matter. So far from the verdict being against the
evidence, I think that anyone who reads the evidence would be
surprised if the verdict had been different. The argument for
the appellant is entirely fallacious. In my opinion the appeal
should be dismissed with costs.